Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

barely make it. There's more ways to go. Yeah, there is. You can sell real estate. You should be home. Way to go. It is. How are you, John? Before we start, um Yeah. Could I have everybody's attention for just a minute? I might may be out of line here, but that's okay. We're just having a nice conversation over here with uh um the son of Mitch Lunt who passed away recently. He has been a pillar in the community for decades. And for those that know, uh, he passed away last Thursday. Is that correct? And he, uh, produced a heck of a son. And, uh, he passed at home. And yeah, good man. Good. When you're that old, there's not much left to do. So, Yep. We feel good about it.

Thank you. I think that's nice. Thanks for doing that. Oh, yeah. Of course. Thank you. [clears throat] Well, it looks like it's time to get going. I'd like to welcome everybody to the planning commission meeting. This is the Groundhog Day edition of last week's meeting. So, um, welcome to that. Uh, we'll start with the pledge. Jennifer, would you mind leading us? love to please stand for the pledge.

I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank [clears throat] you. Looks like, as most of you know, um we went over this some of these items a week ago, uh and had to do a little additional noticing. Appreciate you guys doing that and getting it out so we can get this uh covered this evening. So, uh we'll start with regular item one, approval of minutes. Does anybody want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes dated November 18th, 2025. Thank you. I'll second that. Motion and second. All in favor? I I Thank you. Next is uh Mr. Meling. Um ordinance text amendment. You want to go over that? Thanks again. Thank you. I was told I have three sentences. Three. So I just use the first one. This is part B. Part B. Part B.

Um I'll just what we had talked about last time again just uh a few things. state law compliance and others just trying to figure out the best way to figure out when to install sidewalks, ensure that they get installed without knowing that we're going to rip them up within the next 12 to 18 months um and replace them. Right? So, uh this is our attempt in working with staff to to get that timeline correct. There was one issue that I heard about earlier today and I I don't know if this if if any staff got wind of it yet, but there is a little bit of a an issue with that timing. So, let's say let's say you're you know you're uh you've put in all your streets, your road improvements, your your uh curbs and gutters, um and you're building houses. You're going to install the sidewalk with each of those houses. Um, sometimes you want to turn water on before you have CFO and before you have sidewalks on, um, so that you can use that for interior construction and things like that. Well, the water department will not turn on water if there's no concrete collar poured around that uh, meter, but um, you don't want to pour the collar at a different time than the sidewalk because then they're not going to match. Um, so that's one of the things we're also trying to figure out how to navigate. Maybe that's just an internal policy matter. I I don't know. Has that come on your radar yet today?

Not today. Okay. But the came on our radar this morning. Okay. The issue of the concrete collars is another issue that we will be discussing internally as far as whether they're needed or if they are when they're needed. That's some discussion we can have.

Okay. Um, but other than that, again, the um, correct me if I'm wrong, Randall, but the um, the way I read the newly passed state law is that the city can't require those sidewalks to be installed subdivisionwide for at least a period of 18 months if there's been a bond paid. Um, so you can still get certific certificate of occupancy on individual homes as long as you're putting in those sidewalks. um just the subdivisionwide, you know, kind of with that mo that model of look, if you're just kind of building, especially some of the smaller uh homes um that have less frontage, right? And you're just you're not selling lots that people are going to sit on. Um you can go ahead and build those homes without putting in all the sidewalk knowing you're going to have to rip them back out and replace them. Um is that about right?

No, that's right. Right. And we've we've done it as a 12-month standard until well this year when they changed it to 18 months at the state level. Uh that will alleviate some of these where we would need this ordinance if everybody build all their houses within 18 months. Um it obviously won't hit all of them. Um but the state obviously is pushing us to extend that time frame beyond the 12 months, but even the 18 months won't reach as far as this new updated subsection. Quick question. Is that 18 months minimum or can we extend that further?

That's the minimum that we have to give. Okay, we could go longer and really the only thing that probably prevents us from going longer other than our own fear of enforcement if we wait 10 years is how long is a letter of credit going to be good for issued by a bank? How long is a shity bond going to be good for issued by a sh company? Cash we can go for forever because we're sitting with the cash. But state law, we can't require them to only use cash. they we have to give them at least two options. Um but yeah, 18 months would be the minimum again for sidewalks. It doesn't apply to everything else. Um but again, I don't know if we've necessarily been that strict at 12 month mark suddenly installing sidewalks and charging everybody. Um but the state is trying to push for a little longer time frame. The only thing I would notice if you didn't see last week versus this week, the formatting for this is a little bit different than last week's. I took almost the exact same wording and took legal uh subsections ABC all that different stuff to have the grammar fit a little bit better. The only other thing that I did, I changed that, if you see it on there, the corner lots, I changed the frontage on more than one street because we do have some lots that are not just corner lots, they're through lots and they have three or four different sides that front on streets and we wanted to be a little bit more inclusive as to when it's available. But again, this is broader than what the state statute is requiring us to do.

So, correct me if I'm wrong. Can't We're not asking them to bond for 18 months. Right. See, Don, I can't hear you. So, we're if I if I'm not mistaken, we're not asking them to bond for 18 months. This typic, as it's written now, they would have be required to put in the sidewalk before acceptance of the subdivision. And then we need then we have a warranty bond. I mean a a a warranty for 12 months, right?

Um yeah. And I guess I need to make sure I understand better what that state code requirement is really saying. But we're but we are saying here in this under um you know these these uh this added wording that we're talking about. We are saying that these that there are sidewalks that would not be part of the developer's responsibility. they would come with the building construction, right? So, those wouldn't those wouldn't the the the amount of time that a developer has under a bonding situation to get sidewalks in wouldn't even apply to those particular sidewalks. It would apply to the ones that we're saying the developer is still responsible to install. Um but but with that it sounds to me like the state code may be saying some things there if those are bonded that go contrary to our current practices. So we need to explore that a little bit deeper. But that doesn't really have anything to do with anything that's on the screen right now. The changes we're talking about making those would be requirements from state code whether whether we make any of these other changes or not. Um, but it would only apply to the sidewalks that the developer is required to install.

So, just to give you the exact wording so you have it, this is state statute. A municipality may not redeem an improvement completion assurance. So, bonding securing the installation of a public sidewalk sooner than 18 months after the date the improvement completion assurance is posted. So, it's its wording is pretty broad like it would include it even under our new ordinance. What we're doing in the new ordinance is shifting a lot of this to the builders rather than a subdivider. Um, this statute would still apply. We're still looking at 18 months, the date we make them post. Um, so it could create some complications. They build a house and they don't build a sidewalk for 18 months. Um, but it's state statute. the legislature.

And to be clear, the the state statute can still does still require um that rather it allows cities to require the sidewalk for that house to be completed before CFO, just not subdivision. Yeah, that's a separate one. But yeah, so everything else. Does this affect lots that I live in a subdivision in a street that's 50, 60 years old and there are vacant lots without sidewalk. They have curbon gutter. We have asphalt, but then there's just a patch of dirt that people stop at and go out in the street and go. Does that affect lot owners that do not have a home on there yet?

So, what this is doing is creating more of those same situations where if you have a new subdivision, so just looking at new ones, right? Right now, we would say when Joe Blow's, you know, construction company brings in a new project, they have to put in all of the curb, gutter, sidewalk. All the improvements are on them as the subdivider. This new one will now stretch that at least in certain circumstances, it's all on the builder. Well, either way, it's on the builder, I guess, because it's developer and builder has to do it on his own. So you will have lots that will remain vacant for 50 years like that one in these newer subdivisions. Our current ordinance doesn't allow that.

New ordin new our current ordinance would say any subdivision we need all the sidewalks in. Otherwise we will never sign off on your subdivision. Right? So that's your trade-off. You'll have more lots without the sidewalk, but you'll also have fewer lots where we put the sidewalks in two or three times. It's kind of an inconvenience. 50 or 60 years ago, I understand. But now, because we're modern, uh, it's an really inconvenience for the street because I'm always seeing people, they don't want walk in the mud and the weeds and everything. So, they Yep. And that again, that's your debate. That's what you're you're trying to determine which inconvenience is worse.

So, we have lots that will remain without sidewalks potentially for months, potentially for years. And if they do put them in like he said or again they'll put them in build a house run over and crack and everything will destroy them anyway getting in there and then they have to repour them and then we fill the landfills. That's just the curb, you know. I mean it's just the driveway portion. I mean if you can get the builder to stay there, [laughter] the problem is a lot more than the driveway gets broken up and has to be replaced. Yeah, that's

so we end up on a lot of these where most of that sidewalk if not all of it ends up being replaced after the developer spent the initial money to put it in. So really the reason we're bringing this to you in this form is because we believe that the advantages gained overall of less waste of money and everything of holding off on a lot of those sidewalks I don't know what's going on with the computer here until the uh um you know until the home gets built that that outweighs the uh minor inconveniences of having some lots sit without sidewalks sometimes for many years.

But you know, one thing that I can see is that that passes the cost on along to the the end user and that not always is the developer the builder in the subdivision. So if you look at Saddleback for example, where I'm building, that would push that cost back to the homeowner, you know, that's that's building a house. In theory, that cost gets to the homeowner either way. It's either passed off from the developer as part of the lot price or it ends up being part of the added price after you purchased the lot. Either way, either way, that cost in one form or another is being borne by the homeowner already twice once.

And and that's your question as a realtor, right? So, if if you go to and this is Carter Wilkkey had his own opinion on as well, so I won't bring that up, but um has if you're selling a lot and that lot has a sidewalk or the lot doesn't have a sidewalk, does that change the price of the lot being sold? No.

I think it changes the desiraability. It might not change the price of the lot. So, you know what I can see is a developer, you know, they'll save that money, you know, that they're going to have to would have had to put, you know, all that into the into the project or into the subdivision. So, they'll save that, but they don't necessarily pass that along, you know, in a discount, you know, to where the the new buyer of the lot gets uh 5,000 off or and that's where I totally disagree. I believe in the free market forces

and it we have some people that are more cynical than others thinking it doesn't go down it and I don't publicly go out and build homes for other people but I per personally even a free market basis and I believe that everything the developer can save at some point and I'm not talking every situation At some point it brings down prices. There's no way. Nope. Developers going to charge what they're going to charge. I think the developer just makes more money. But anyway, going to make more money. So that's

I think what really brings the value of a lot down is if the water collar is a different color than the sidewalk. What does that matter? Doesn't matter. Tyler, you said at the beginning you're concerned about the sidewalk matching the watercolar. Who cares? Well, it's it's it's just a matter of requirement, right? So, if this if the city won't turn on the water till the water collar's poured, but and it's not the color, it's the it's the elevation of of that concrete. I see.

Yeah. It's tying in that elevation properly. And and to be clear, I mean, Don and I had a good discussion about this this morning, right? There are many different models of of construction and subdividing, right? If if this policy is, you know, has been the standard and and is the standard in most cities for uh the timing of sidewalk installation, right? Cedar some time ago decided well that's not what we want because we had so many people on stated income with very little um uh you know before the financing rules changed by lots to sit on for decades right without ever building and yeah that sidewalk never gets done. Um, you have other models. Um, you know, the project that that we came through with in mind, we don't sell lots ever. We sell houses. Um, so there are no lots that will be sold to individuals until there's a house on it, right? So that changes the timeline significantly. Um, so if if you have a model where you are not selling lots until a house is built on it, then why would you spend an extra three grand per unit to build sidewalk to tear it out within 12 months, right?

And I understand it when it's when it's that type of situation. It's it's the onesie twoosies. It's where they're just selling, you know, lots to individual um buyers, um, individual builders and things like that. They could sit for 10 years, right? Absolutely. Yep. So,

is there a city standard for water meters, whether they're in the parking, they're in the sidewalk? Is there a standard position for those? Because I'm thinking of my own. My own is dead center in the middle of the sidewalk, which is now collapsed, and it's a it's a hazard. And then my neighbors is in their is in their parking. But our lot our houses were were built, you know, 10 15 years apart.

Yeah. So the the current city standard on that is that those meter boxes go behind the sidewalk. Um if we with future modifications wind up with planter strips, maybe they'll go in planter strips, but for now behind the sidewalk somewhere that is not in the driveway. And they they're generally, you know, just a a you know, the front of that box is a a foot or two behind the sidewalk and that concrete collar that goes around it butts up against the sidewalk. So that is our our current uh standard for those. I'm going to have to replace mine. [laughter]

Either that or [clears throat] I think we're good. Other discussion? I happen to have a lot of shares in Sunrock, so I'm all for replacing the Sunrock. [laughter] Not really. Are you declaring that you have No, no, no, no. I have no conflict. [laughter] But I thought Tyler must not have Sunrock shares then, right? I I have a question. I I think I think I said at the last meeting, it's kind of a double-edged sword. We're talking about where it really makes sense and maybe where it doesn't. You know, where folks might be buying a lot and they're dreaming to move to Cedar in 15 years. I can't hear you.

Or or when they retire. Is there some sort of middle ground, Tyler? You were kind of mentioning is there a trigger later on down the road where you could get those sidewalks put in whether it's two years from now or Right. And that's and that's certainly something we can look at, right? is is and I and I don't know what that middle ground is as far as you know precisely I I mean again this was something to us right so

if we want to talk conflicts we want to talk motivations where we only do builder developer model we would love for all our competitors to have to pay to put in sidewalk that we know that that they're going to have to then incur that cost sell that lot and then we don't have to because Again, state law doesn't require us to um until this goes in. Right. So again, this is more of a courtesy to the building community um because for us, we're fine. I mean, our latest project, we don't have to install sidewalks till February of 27. Um except for the homes that we're building, right? And that's fine and we'll save a lot of money that way. Um but um if you want a blanket rule that's going to apply to all, I don't know what that is. Um and maybe it's even just based on lot frontage, right? If you have uh if if you're in say an R1 zone or RE zone, maybe you have to put them in. I very rarely see custom home building or people sitting on lots in R2 or R3. So maybe that's the differentiator. So yeah, I don't I don't have a good answer.

Yeah. And then and then that brings about the R22 and and all of those. So, right.

And so and that's part of I think what the state legislature is trying to do is is give you that at least 18 months. So you've subdivided, you've so timeline, just so you guys know, we require bonding right before we record their plat. So that's the moment they can start actually selling lots officially. Not that they don't already sell them unofficially, but officially. So that gives them 18 months from the time people might be able to start pulling building permits to get it in. It could go longer. Again, I'd have to talk to a bank to see how long they'll give a letter of credit for. Uh the longer it is sometimes the harder it is for staff to keep track of. But there is that question, and I think that's what Don's hitting at is kind of a fallback. Do you say after two years or three years we're done waiting for builders? Now we want the developer to come in and put in the rest of the sidewalks.

That's pretty fast for some subdivisions. That's pretty slow for others. And it depends on the market, right? No matter what we pick, it's going to be good under one market and bad under. Yeah. Just because that's the way life works.

And we talk about pricing and profit and who saves and who doesn't. You know, I I recently saw a project. I was shocked at the pricing um at how high it was for what was being offered and I thought, "Wow, they're going to be sitting on this project for 7 to 10 years." And that's a long time in the development world, right? So, it's so yes, you do get to choose. Do you pass those savings on so you can get out of a project and be done and not be paying interest on it for, you know, the next decade or do you want to be out of a project within two to three years? because

it's a lot more of a headache to sit on a project. So, um, but that's again that's the way the market works. People are free to choose to try to get every dime they can out of a project and they're going to be sitting on it and it's going to be their own personal headache for a long time or they can get out of it and pass on those savings. So, anyway, so you're basically choosing between two imperfect choices. Yeah. Yeah, for [laughter] sure. But would they have to still do curb and gutter or are we talking curb gutter and sidewalk? The way this is worded is just sidewalk. Yeah, the curb curb and gutter is always required. Yeah. Rather than re

So yeah, you'd still have for our city drainage purposes, we need that in place. So this is purely just the sidewalk portion for pedestrians,

kids on bikes, wheelchairs. So my my uh concern with the idea that was expressed of possibly having a a sunset date on the de you know that uh not requiring the developer to put them in up front and having that instead be the responsibility of of uh you know the home construction that the sidewalk goes in to say that the developer has to come back if if uh people haven't done that after say two years or whatever that might be. I to me that's not a good way to do business where the developer needs to know upfront what their responsibility is. That's true.

And so that that's why I would rather define what sidewalks the developer is not required to put in. Um and uh and then they're off the hook on those particular sidewalks. Those come with the home. Now, if the developer wants to make an agreement and the home builder wants to make an agreement that the developer is going to come put the sidewalk in when they get the home built so they can get their CEO. That's that's an issue between two private parties. But in terms of our requirements, we need the developer needs to know what they're responsible for. Brent, [clears throat] do you want to chime in on this? You guys are the public.

We [laughter] haven't opened the public hearing. You guys do it. Yeah, let's do let's do this so we can take advantage of the collective knowledge in here. This is a public hearing. So, let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Can I just get a clarification? Maybe I'm just not understanding this full picture. A developer comes in, bare piece of land, they have the plot drawn up, they get approval, they subdivide, they put the curb gutter in, but zero sidewalk, or do they have to put in the ADA requirements? Yeah. Up front. on item number one, A1 right there on on the screen that they would be required to put in the ADA and pedestrian ramps at all street corners.

So, is that just like five or six feet of sidewalk? It's more than that. It's the whole It's the whole curb return, the whole radius. Radius. Okay. So, still 20 30 feet in a in a corner and then nothing else till the next corner.

Right. except along the uh major roadways where they're not taking access. So, so when we build a subdivision, let's say you got a corner a corner lot and one frontage is local street, the other is say it's an arterial or a major collector or something like that, the access is going to come off the local street. So on the arterial side, yes, they would be required to put that in. So that's what item two is talking about where we say sidewalks along roadways functionally classified as major collectors or higher. So those major collectors, those minor arterials, those major arterials, the developer will still put those in you know and you know we have also have the situation of and I think we've addressed that on B. Um no, where did we address it? I thought we had it addressed. Oh. Uh, where well where we have yeah any of those I guess it really does come down to the function of classified roadways. So a lot of times we'll have in lots within the subdivision that back up to the arterials. So the lots are sandwiched in between a local street and the arterial. So those arterial improvements would still happen in their entirety.

Okay. Right. It's it's the local street frontage that that house uses, you know, where they get their access and they all of that. That's those are the sidewalks we're talking about. Okay. Currently, when that subdivision goes in, the developer is required to put all sidewalk in. Is that the case? That is. And and I'm not fully understanding the problem with that. Uh I understand things get broken, but if if you know where the driveway is going to go, that's a good place to break the sidewalk. Um, I I just don't see a problem with it unless there's weather conditions that don't permit you to to pour the concrete and that's pretty extreme here.

The the problem with it is what we see in practice. I mean, in theory, yes. The the homeowner comes in, they start building the house, they know where the driveway's going to go, they could just go ahead and remove it and get access or they know only break this. The problem is we get sidewalk broken all up and down the street as as that those construction activities go on and and this a lot of that happens while that sidewalk for the developer is still under warranty. Okay. So now we're coming back to the developer and we're saying this sidewalk you put in is all cracked up. You need to replace it, you know, before we can sign off on the end of the warranty. And someone has broken it up. We don't know who. Um and uh you know, so the only thing we can do is go after the developer. Is that fair to that developer that he's out there spending thousands of dollars replacing sidewalk that was broken by other parties, but we don't know who? Or do we just let that sidewalk wait so that it doesn't get all broken up and we're not wasting money? That that's really what we're trying to address here.

Okay. Thank you. [clears throat] Thanks for that clarification. Okay. public hearing. Anybody like to speak to this?

I don't want to, but San called me up here. [laughter] All right. Um Brent Drew with LeB development team with this one. I think and maybe when the question is Wayne, because you're a good builder, you know, to go there and go over where you're going to cut the sidewalk and use that. But what we see happening there and when you say would there be savings or not, we [snorts] decide what we're going to charge for a lot by well we're going to put this much money into developing that site. And when I started in the business it used to be $13,000 to put all your infrastructure into a lot. Now we're talking 90 90 to$ 110,000 per lot to to do that. But we sometimes have a not a builder of your quality will decide they need to go over somebody else's lot from behind and drive to load whatever they need for their lot. They crack the sidewalk and that in front of somebody else's lot and then we still get charged for that. So we know that's happening. So we put that into our number two and say, "Okay, it was this much to put it in." But we're going to get charged for this sidewalk, that sidewalk. And when the city comes through and does the inspections, we're looking at lots that haven't even been developed where they're cracked after we put in the pristine sidewalks. So that's why we're we're sitting there going, you know, we understand it could be us, but we're going, well, that lot's going to cost us a little bit more down the road and for 18 months down the future there, and it's not us out there driving our trucks over those sidewalks.

How confident are you that the prices really do stay down if you don't put the sidewalk in? Well, cuz when we when we what we do when we go out and we figure out what the lot cost is, we put all those improvements, what it's going to cost us in together and do a percentage on top of it. Sure. You know, I mean, that's just the simple way we do it. And and so we're going if we're going to be putting this into it, then that lot's going to cost that much more. You think that's the case with most developments that they do it that way or you think they say, "Okay, we can get x amount of dollars whether there's sidewalk in or not." If you just say we can get this amount of dollars without figuring what you're going to put in it to before you're not making a very informed decision of you see what I'm saying. It'd be like

I'll just go out there and guess you Yeah. So we don't do it that way. We have to figure out everything in there. In fact, if we do have somebody come and say, "I'd like that lot before we're even doing a subdivision." will say we can reserve it, but I can't give you a cost until I know exactly how much money we're going to be putting into that just for that reason.

But again, I'd say there are a lot of builders who do not do that. It's just there's a certain group out there right now that seems to not care about boundaries and things like that. And and I think what happens is we get as shocked as whatever, too. And we go and do the inspection, walk through with her and go, "How on earth did this get cracked?" you know, it just it's just and I think that's the it's the amount of cracking we're seeing lately. And and so we're sitting there going, I don't know how that happens. You know, we used to have a lot more [clears throat] days of pump trucks. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else like to comment about this? If not, um, Kent, it's my understanding that the cement collar for the water meters can be overcome without changing this. Is that right? Or the We will work on We will work on ways around that because we'll Yeah, we just won't have the sidewalk there to match a collar up to until it gets put in as part of the home construction. So that's something we'll just have to to change in our standards to not have that required at that point in time.

So that'll that'll have to come back. So everybody on the construction site knows [clears throat] what was that? Well, just with the callers, the question on the callers, that's going to require some actual changes to standards. So that won't be your issue today. While it's related, that's not what we're asking you to give your opinion on today. Excellent. Well, it's back to us. Does anybody want to u comment further or make a motion? I'll make I'm still pretty torn to be honest with you. I'll make a motion for two years that they don't have to put sidewalks in. So, six months above the minimum state law.

So, can I clarify on that one? Sure. So, the changes that are before you, if I said no, you couldn't, what would happen? I'd ask everybody else what they thought you meant. [laughter] You might not want that answer. Um, so what's presented before you is shifting the installation, the majority of sidewalks to the builders? Yeah. Is your motion then to still leave it with the developer, but give them two years to put it in? because based on what's here, we wouldn't need two years. We would just say when you go to get your certificate of occupancy, your sidewalk has to be done. That's a good point. Thank you for clarifying. Well, there they're two different questions, which I'm fine with what you're proposing because there's plenty of people that have pushed exactly for that.

So, I just want to make sure we distinguish between the two. You know, I I hate waste. Just just one of my greatest things. And maybe it's because I grew up with a great depression mom. I just just makes me crazy. Um I'd like to switch it if if we can directly to the the builder of the property. Okay. So, is your motion then to support what's been proposed? Yes. Because that's what that would do. Yes. Okay.

Reason I put a date on there is the there was some discussion how long do we leave it? 10 years, 5 years, seven years. Well, now it would be indefinitely and and we're gonna we're going to have a we're going to have a exceptions to every rule, whatever we do. But that's what what my proposal would be. Leave it to the builder to put that in. So your proposal would be this as is written currently. Yes. Um proposed before us. Yes.

Can I just get that clear for the record? So when I put the motion and it's a clear motion, please just say everything clear it up. Everything Tyler I think everything Tyler has proposed with the the minor clarifications that we've we've sought is what I would propose. So my understanding would be your proposal is that what is presented on the screen before us is um what what you support and are proposing that we make a recommendation on.

Yes, sir. I'm still just a little unclear on this and please forgive me if I'm I'm just slow on it, but uh the subdivision goes in, curb gutter goes in, the ad a requirements go in on the corners, a a pro a contractor comes in and builds a house. He puts his sidewalk in and let's say there's 50 lots in the subdivision and 30 of them go in relatively soon and 20 are just left there without sidewalk forever potentially. Yes. I don't like that. [laughter] then don't fa vote in favor of it. Thank you. Yeah, that's really the distinction. Are you trying to avoid the waste of multiple sidewalks being put in multiple times, but run the risk that some lots will remain without a sidewalk potentially indefinitely?

Yeah, I understand the breakage and and I've probably had concrete trucks pull over sidewalks over the years and probably broke something I shouldn't have broke and I don't know, but thanks for the kind words anyway, but uh please don't call me. I'm retired. Uh [laughter] um yeah, I just Yeah, just does. Thank you. I'm I'm clear on things now, but thank you. Perfect. We have a motion. Second. All right, we have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I I

What do we got? You're a nay. Three nays. I'm a nay. So So the motion fails. Yeah. So that means it's a negative recommendation to council. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um Mr. Chairman, may I make I guess the term's point of privilege. May I ask that we take item number seven and move it to item number Can I can I pause you on that real quick though? The preference still is to have a motion that actually gets the majority of the vote.

So we would need if you don't if you're not in favor of it, then we would want a motion against it and then a vote. Well, a motion in a second. Or a motion for a modification. If the only reason you voted no is because you want to tweak it, do that, too. Or the proponent can take it directly to the council as it exists. No, because we we actually need something from the planning commission. Oh, okay. Well, they can't the council can't vote until you have made a recommendation. Oh, but again, it can be nay and then the council can vote and say yes anyway. We just need a vote. A time or two? Just a few. Well, I'll make a I'll make a negative recommendation then

so this can be moved forward. All right, we have a negative recommendation. And I'm doing it with I'm not doing it because I believe it. I'm doing it just an effort to move it forward. All right. I will second that with an explanation that

what I am seeing that that subdivision would then be kind of a patchwork like my 50 or 60 year old street is. And I would much rather see the sidewalks there and a little bit of care and understanding as the home is built that they mark out. The builders are required some way to mark out where those driveways are going and that's where the access to that lot be because they are going to be broken. I realize that. But a vacant lot with no sidewalks for 50 years in a developed subdivision is terrible. [clears throat]

Agreed. I'll second his motion. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I I

Any opposed? Thank you, Tom. And others. Okay. make one one request that we take item number seven and move it to item number in right right after this item. We have some people here from out of town that are just volunteering to give their expertise and knowledge as it relates to the water issue and we have a gentleman who's an engineer with handsome Allen Luch that has to commute back back home tonight. So if we could respect those that have a long travel Uh, I think that would be fine. Um, is there anybody opposed to that? If not, we'll move on to item number seven, uh, public hearing on the water preservation element. Who's here to propose? Go ahead. Nice to see you.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I also don't mind sitting in these meetings. They're loads of fun. But, uh, I I do appreciate I just threw you in and up for courtesy. You just like the other ones I worried about. You like deer crossing the freeway at 2:00 a.m.

Well, 9:00 p.m. 2 a.m. What's the difference? But anyway, okay. So, thank you. Uh, this should be pretty brief. I came and presented on the water use element of the general plan at the October 25th meeting. Uh, we went through it in more detail, had some good discussion and some good comments there. Um so we have since that time made just a few changes to the report. Um one of the changes that we made was to uh include additional SC discussion on agriculture and open space. Uh this was a comment we got back from the state. Um and I think the intent here is to just you know try and balance everything out. there can be some tension between water conservation and agriculture and open space because agriculture and certain types of open space use water. So, um we wanted to make some clarifications there. Um and really those clarifications are in line with the language in the city's general plan. So, we're being consistent there, but we've included statements as far as Cedar City's support for agriculture and plans for open space. So, that was included. Uh we've included more description on the city's water assets and the city's water system and we've uh made um minor edits to improve clarity and add some details. So uh other than that it should be fairly similar to our discussion about a month ago. So um I'll leave it at that and take questions as as needed. In this proposal, I would like to see a little more emphasis put on the city's water use, cemeteries, ballparks, where the city is there. A lot of our neighbors don't understand what the different water is and why we're doing it there. We're telling them, don't

water your lawns between 8 and six or seven. Yet, here's the city, the schools, the SU. They're out sprinkling water 247. And I think that there needs to be a little more understanding between the residents of the city of where these waters come from, why they're being used, and yes, we're not just wasting your water. Maybe a little more little more conservation on the city's part. Let the city let the city set the example. Okay. set the example by not watering or

water what you have to. We want a beautiful city. I'm not against watering, but just let the people cuz I've had neighbors say, "Well, God, the water's on 24/7 at the cemetery or SU's, you know, trying to grow asphalt or concrete and yet they want me not to water." So Mhm. a little more understanding so that our neighbors can use our water wisely. That's it boils down to let's use what we got and use it wisely. And I think that's a very fair I think that's a very fair point. Uh education's everything.

We have mechanisms through the mayor's newsletters or through social media to explain we're not necessarily sucking that water out of the ground. We have other mediums that we're using for some of the some of our water, you know, to water the fields or the schools or the or the cemetery and so forth. And I I think that's important that we we educate the public because, you know, monkey see monkey do and and they get frustrated say, "Well, if they can do it, I can do it." And I I I think what Jim said is very important.

Yes. And one strategy we have included in the plan that I think can help with this is what we call a water budget. We've recommended that the city establish a water budget for every property. So look at the characteristics of that property. And for an example, we'll use a park and say, "Okay, how much water does that grass really need to survive?" and then track very carefully. Um and then if we can demonstrate to the citizens that okay we are watching this very carefully we're using good scientific data that can be an educational tool. So have the city lead by example

and then the citizens will automatically fall behind you because they see yeah you're concerned about it so I as a citizen should be concerned about it. Well said.

Um, well, this is a public hearing, so let's think think about that for a minute. Do others have comments and Clark and I have to go. I've got grandkids waiting at home. Oh, that's not

They're arriving for Thanksgiving and I'm not there. They're arriving. Here's what I think about the water. I want the city to water. I want it to be a beautiful place. Now, you could change the timing and water in the morning during the same hours that we ask people to do, but this is my big thing on water. Um, I think if you want to do a positive motivator, all water should cost the same amount. And to motivate people to use less, hey, we'll drop your bill if you use less. We do the punishment one where we're going to this we the government are going to tell you how much water you get and then if you go over that you tear up you tear up you tear up and what happened is Steve brought up last week for families that have a lot of children you're going to do laundry you're going to do bathing let's hope and it so it really is a deterrent to to anybody having a bigger family it's just another huge tax on them so I think we need to do a positive motivator saying all water is the same amount of money if you use less then you get a bonus But the way it is now, it is. And Tom asked me. He said, "Do you really believe it?" I said, "Yes." And I'm going to tell you why I believe it. Because I lived it. I lived this very thing in Palmdale, California. And I keep bringing that up. Because what happened is people have to choose between water and food. They will not water their lawns. They won't have landscaping. They'll choose food. And then what happens is the neighborhoods fall apart. And as the neighborhoods go, so does the town go. So, I think it's really fine for a lot a lot of us. Now, I like I've said to you, my husband doesn't really care about how much the watering costs him. But what I'm what I'm telling you is that it really is a problem for a lot of people. And we can lead out an example about when we water, but water should be the same amount of money. You should not have any tiered watering at all whatsoever. And if you want to motivate people, say you're going to lower their water bill if they, you know, if they use less. Anyway, thank you.

And may I just remind everybody and I I'm I'm gonna shoot from the hip here. About 75% if I'm you help me out, Jonathan, if I'm correct here, about 75% of the water used is for non indoor use in our city. So watering lawns and and washing your your yard and washing your driveway down and and so so the large families I think I although I appreciate large families cuz I come from one the that the amount of water is not that's not where the water's being being used on you know washing and showering and the

more people use more water I I people in a household use more water.

I get that, but I'm just saying about 80%. Am I correct here? 75 80% Jonathan Jonathan Stathis, city engineering. Um Tom, that is correct. Most most of the majority of water use is for outdoor irrigation. Um the city has tried to set those tiers at a high enough level where it it gives um people an allowance that they can uh have enough water for indoor use. Um now whether we need to look at maybe adjusting those tiers a little bit that that might be something that the city could look at um to to make sure that people have enough for for indoor use. Um but but really the the big uh the big issue is you know to try to encourage people to conserve on their outdoor use.

Yeah. Um and and again this uh this report talks a lot about uh drought tolerant plants. Um we made a visit to that gentleman who again I forgot his name if he's here. His name's Andrew Dudley. Okay.

Andrew. Yeah. Sorry Andrew. uh you know he has he he has an amazing yard that's filled with drought tolerant plants. It's very beautiful. Um it doesn't use very much water. So there there there are options um to to do landscaping where you don't have to use much water. So, and that's what we've tried to do in this report and and one of the recommendations is to provide actually provide a packet to developers to homebuilders that they can actually go and implement some of those ideas um with the drought tolerant landscaping. So, so anyway, those are just just some things that we've we've tried to include in the report as we move forward. [clears throat] you.

So, thank you, Jonathan. An um Ann Clark, here's my question that I really have to go. How do you know? How do you know whether you're using water for indoor use or outdoor use? How do how do how does that work, Jonathan? How can you tell? As I think mostly where we've done it, and Tyler can obviously fill this in as well, is when you're looking at town homes and things like that, it's very easy to see a lot of that indoor use versus outdoor. you have single family homes like mine, it's a little harder. But yeah, when you're looking at apartments, town homes, things like that, none of those users have

grass and it's a very small percentage of their water use. So that's actually one of the biggest indicators I've seen when I've seen the numbers is trying to focus in on those indoor use only kind of areas. And you als you you also look at the seasonal adjustments. So, as someone who spent roughly 300 hours in 2021, going through all of the billing data for the city, I can tell you we set tier one and left it at 8,000 gallons a month, which is far higher than just about any other city in the West.

Um, which is the cheapest tier because we know we have some big families. The very biggest families in January use less than 8,000 gallons a month in in this town. There are some outliers. If you looked at their data over several years, it was generally a leak or something like that. But very few families in the month of January used more than 8,000 gallons. The median citywide was about 5,000. Um in new construction, it's about 3500 a month um because of the the efficient faucets. So we left that very cheap. the 12,000 above that up to the 20,000 tier was um based on as anybody who knows anything about water in the state of Utah, we assumed historically until recently that homes uh the duty that was provided to a city when you get your permit is a halfacre foot of water per door. Right? So we we know based on how much water right people have provided whether they're getting a home out in the valley uh unincorporated or on a private well or in the city that it was about a halfacre foot a year. So that's that's the social compact Utons have lived by since we started allocating water rights for homes. Um that gives you up to 20,000 gallons a month 6 months out of the year if the other six are eight right,000 gallons a month. So we also left that very cheap. So between those two tiers, if you're maxing out those tiers in this city, your bill over the last five years has gone up about $7 a month. And that was by design. We we wanted to keep it very low. Uh because we did not want families to be impoverished due to grass and and irrigation. And there there that's an allowance for grass, right? If you have a larger than average lawn for the largest lots in our city, you can still water that in that a lotment. um with a inch and a half of water every week in

the middle of the summer and that's great. Um if you're not paying attention, yeah, it's going to cost you a lot and that's by design because it costs the taxpayers a lot of money if you don't. So now for new development, we instituted even more stringent standards and that comes with a recorded agreement on the property where you know you're going to start facing penalties after 12,000 gallons a month instead of 20. And um we're seeing now those users are using an average of 4,500 a month, not 12,000, which is great. So they're more than paying their way. They're helping pay into that system and stabilize all of our other conservation efforts. So that's why we designed it the way we did. And now the new council gets to decide when they uh have to fund other projects. Do we keep placing that on the highest users that are using five, six, seven households worth of water or do we place that across the board and have all the families that are trying to conserve pay that too? So, but but I I would caution if we go to a static billing model where all water costs the same, which it doesn't cost the city the same amount because that's more um more wells, more tanks, more pumps. uh we would not only be one of the only cities doing that in the Mountain West where even with the changes we're still one of the cheapest in the Mountain West. Um I grew up in a place with twice the precipitation in Texas that we get here and we used a fraction of the water we used here. Um and our bill was $350 a month and that's the norm. the farther uh the more water you have uh the more expensive the the water gets as you go east um because you shouldn't be watering outside, right? So So the key is adapting your landscape, adapting your habits and and again as a city certainly we would encourage people to stay under 20,000 gallons a month to keep it cheap.

Thank you. And you asked a question. How do we know? And and to put it real bluntly, it's pretty simple. We know exactly how many gallons we suck out of the wells and then we know how many gallons get processed at the sewer treatment plant. And you subtract the two and that tells you how much is being used indoor versus outdoor.

Okay. I'm just saying that when you if you're you're using high density developments to see how much water people and that you're saying they're using less. Most people most families in higher density housing are smaller families. That's all I'm going to say, but I've really got to go. Sorry, guys. [laughter] Hey, thank you for the explanation. I appreciate it. And I'm I'm hearing from you that if we tear up, you'll tear up. [laughter] See you. Thank you for your comments. Thanks for your comments. I don't know how this Yeah, you're good. Just give us your name and up here. Okay, happy to hear from you.

And I've met a few people. So I like plants. I mean, I do other things obviously, but I but I like plants a lot. But just to the point of and I think to Ann's point really, I think if you drive it right home, her fear is that if costs are too much for families, they abandon the yard and everything starts to get run down. And and just to that point, um there are so many plant options in our area that we can keep our landscaping, our yards, our parkways, our parks, our everything looking excellent without pretending we're in New England. And um that's a chronic issue in Utah, frankly. We like big old yards and all these trees that take up water like we get 30 inches a year, and we just don't. But that said, we have fantastic options that are extremely water-wise for our area. So, I think it's a misnomer to think that if we can't water as much, suddenly everything just, you know, goes to heck and it looks terrible and, you know, we might as well just throw in the towel and start having car lots on every corner cuz it's just not the case. So, just to make the point that I think if the culture was willing to change around just what we're planting, we can still have trees and flowering plants and bushes and green spaces and it's all possible on a significantly reduced water budget. So, for what that's worth, I think there's a lot of great options.

So, what you're saying is we maybe need a little bit of education.

I think there Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. And and the education's available. It's just I think people need to know that they need the education in the first place. even uh you know we work in landscaping among other things but I run into it constantly people just plant everything they've always planted you know it's it's the sins of our fathers right I mean it's well this is the only four plants I know how to plant so I just keep planting those same four plants and I think it wouldn't be that significant of a thing for maybe Cedar City to put out something and say hey these are our recommended plant lists here's some sources I think we talked about some of that but just to kind of start nudging people in the direction of well if you just plant this different tree that requires 20% the cutter of the tree we always plant. We're we're way ahead of the game and it still looks great, right? So, some some great options out there, but yeah, education's everything.

And are you for hire and do you go around and do consultations or classes or something like that? I would be totally open to it. Yeah, I should. Yeah, you're right. So, yeah, I would be I'd be open to it. It'd be fun. But yeah, so that was my two cents. I like plants and they're great. Thank you. That is helpful. I [snorts] want his number. Yeah. Anybody else? If not, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for a recommendation.

I'll make a positive recommendation that we adopt the the I'm not sure what you would call that. Water use the water use preservation element. The general plan. Yeah. Of the general plan. I'll second that motion. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I I I thank you. Motion carries. Does this automatically give her a football field fails artificial turf? What's that? I hope I hope so. I know that was that was a try. There's only three things in life that matter and football's number two. What?

All right. Thank you. We'll move uh ahead. Uh public hearing on the zone change from Thank you, sir. Hey, we'll see you. Travel safe. Uh zone change from AT to INM M1. Uh who's here to represent that? You here I am. Dan Roberts. Anyway, we're just petitioning to have uh all this Francisco property uh resone to one instead of partially two. So,

we just discussed talked about it last we just moved this to public hearing, right? Yeah, we can just move it unless somebody has a question. It is a public hearing. So, but the clarification was great last time. So, okay, let's open the public hearing. Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this? Anybody have any questions? Because I know we talked about it another day, so most of us have been um briefed on it. If not, we'll close the public hearing and come back to the commission for

I'll make a recommendation on item number three, the zone change from A to what is it? INM1, that we give it a positive recommendation. I I I will second that, but I'd like to one reiterate one more thing for staff. I hope there's some way we can have a conversation to where we can help share some of the cost in such as railroad crossings or or you know going to someone else's property and some way we can figure out how we could share some of that cost because I I think it's overburdensome for a developer to to pick up all of that and have everybody else receive the benefits of it. So, so I'll second that.

Thank you, Tom. We have a motion and a second. Uh, all in favor? I I I Thank you. Thank you. A motion carries. Thank you, Dan. Uh, the police are ready. Next is a public hearing for zone change from uh GC to R3M. Welcome.

Good evening. Arnold Fost with Coivil Engineering. So, yeah, I think we went over most everything. This was uh we had a client that uh was wanting to use this property. It's currently owned general commercial and it just really doesn't fit with what he wants to do with the property. So, he's just looking to have a it changed to to suit the neighborhood basically. This is the one little lot that sits it's got as an island. Yes, it'll I mean it's close to some other residential, but currently all of the other stuff around it is zone general commercial, but it's all being used. Well, not all. It's all high density anyway.

Yeah. And the general plan for the area is highdensity residential. So, we're zoning in conformance with the general plan. Am I in the right spot here, Arlo? Is it this last? Yes, that is it. Okay. I'll make a positive recommendation. Well, let's have this there's a public hearing. Let's open the public hearing. Feels like deja vu that I've heard before. Close the public hearing. Okay, Tom. Uh, back to the commission for recommendation. Look what eating does to you.

You can make it. Oh, I'll make a positive recommendation on a zone change from general commercial to RM- medium or M R3M at 502 North, 400 West, 510 North, 400 West, 598 North, 400 West, and 590 498. Oh, 498 and 496 north, 400 West. Second. Thank you. Do we have a motion and a second? All in favor? I I Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you, Marlo. [laughter]

Okay. Next public hearing general plan amendment from natural to open natural open to central commercial 2700 Cedar Boulevard. Looks like five can five and six be handled together yet. Yes. Yeah.

Grant Drew with Leandon Investment this time. Uh, so we're just taking, as we discussed before, the 15 or so acres that we have, uh, clear down by the, uh, I guess it's called Shirts Canyon Road now, or it's called the Tipple Road, but anyway, we're at the mouth of that. The property around us is zoned commercial. Uh, the general plan has us open space. We don't know why. And so, we're first making the change from open space into commercial. and they want to go from annex transition to commercial for the zoning.

Thank you. This is a public hearing. Um would anybody else uh like to come and speak to this? Open the public hearing. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for recommendation. Can we cover five and six with this? Yes. If you do it well and very carefully. Okay, Jennifer, you you're well Jennifer's well spoken. Go ahead. No, I'm not.

So, I'll make a positive recommendation for the general plan amendment from natural open to central commercial and six um the zone change from AT to central commercial and I will second that. We have a motion in a second. That's 2700 South Cedar Boulevard, which is odd. Yeah. Given what we thought, but we better clarify that. Anyway, I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I Thank you. The motion carries. Thank you, Chris.

Next, Mr. Budro public hearing ordinance text amendment.

Okay. Thank you, chairman. Uh so the ordinance before you is a uh an attempt to kind of regulate or I should say regulate rectify some inconsistencies in our ordinance. Um this takes the required public utility easement in commercial and industrial zones uh potentially down to 15 ft if the easement is not needed and our public utility or easement holders are okay with that reduction. Uh part of the catalyst for this is in our industrial zone, we have a 15 foot setback. Uh if we require a 20 foot public utility easement, well essentially we've required a 20 foot setback. Uh so if these are not needed and and Ken brought this up u it's something we can certainly work with. It could give the developer a little bit more flexibility if we don't need that full 20 feet there. Um, one caveat that did not make it into this uh slide that you see is in our downtown commercial zone, we talked about this briefly at the last meeting, there are no setbacks required. Um, so my recommendation uh was to uh put some wording in there some along the lines as follows commercial industrial lots minimum 20 foot easement along street property lines where setbacks are required. Uh if we do a subdivision in the downtown commercial zone, we put a 20- foot pee on it and then say there's no setback, we've got we've got a problem there, too. So

So can I ask a question? I don't know if you had any thoughts on that. That sounds good. Can we adapt this what you said about the downtown, but not just a commercial zone, but property that is also zoned general, not zoned general commercial. Um, so Randall, couple last week I asked you about the property south of 200 South

and you said that is general planned, but it is not. So could we include the property that is general planned? Well, I think that you're you're talking Sorry, you're talking about the additional wording that Don's talking about of just saying where there is no setback. Yes. And correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't think you you were giving an explanation that there are zones that don't require a setback, not necessarily recommending wording that said a specific zone. Am I correct? Correct. So, it would be really any property that has a zero setback against a roadway could be at zero. Um, regardless of what it's

we're talking sidewalk that Yeah, we're talking about any property and that's right now it's a downtown commercial, but again, that would if you get a lot changed to downtown commercial, you'd also end up with a zero setback. Um what we're indicating is that the wording Don suggesting it doesn't necessarily care the reason why the ordinance says there's a zero setback. Just simply that there is. So if you get your property changed to zero setback, this would allow you to potentially go down to zero as well. But the only way to get the change to zero setback is to get it zoned to downtown commercial. Correct. But so you would want to do that before you try and build on it.

So if you have a building, all right, and full disclosure, I have a building on Main Street that is right on Main Street or right on the road. H how does that play out? Well, I know you can't tell me to tear the building down, but but if I tore the building down, I can't build another one at that same place then. Right. But that again at that location, I think we determined last time you should be able to just get that zone changed. Okay. And then you'd get the benefits of it anyway. Okay. Yeah. So, we don't want to complicate it by adding zone names into this part. Just leaving it as Don suggested is anywhere where there's a zero setback from the rideway,

then they could potentially go down to zero. So, so just to clarify, my intent is that if that the 20 foot pee applies in all commercial industrial zones, but it would not apply in the downtown commercial zone. That's that's my intent. And then in these other areas, you could reduce it down to 15 feet as long as uh we see that there's no reason for the easement and our utility companies have signed off and the setback could then be 15 ft. Correct.

Okay. And and one advantage I see of going with some wording similar to what uh Don said at the beginning is that I mean right now it's only that downtown commercial zone that has a zero setback. I don't know what the future might hold whether there would ever be a reason to have some other type of zone designation that has a zero setback. But if there were, then this would also apply there, right? if we if we word it that way without us having to go in and change some something else in our in our ordinance. Yes. Thank you.

There is one other thing that I would mention. Some of you have probably heard me say this before that typically we're not legally allowed to let a third party have veto power over a city decision. So I can't have it where your neighbor has to approve the building of your of your house kind of stuff. I provide this as a bit of an exception here where we are asking the friend the utilities to sign off on this mainly because there's a different way to get there as a longer process if the utilities don't sign off on it if that makes sense. They can go in get the 20 ft dedicated and have the city council through a state statute vacate that five feet. That only requires notice to those franchises not their permission. So, we're allowed to do this only because again, we're shortening the process, not because it's the only way. If that makes sense.

Thank you. Any other comments? It's a public hearing. Um, we'll open the public hearing. Anybody like to speak to this? If not, we'll close it and come back to the commission for a motion. So, Don or or or Randall, I own a some commercial property that this will affect. Does this preclude me from voting or Well, it may have it may eventually affect it, but you're not yet zoned that. [laughter]

Well, I well, I have some commercial property that would this would affect that. If we started broadening it far enough that a generally applicable change like this would impact all those properties, um, we'd have some of these that none of you could vote on. So, I think you're probably fine. You've disclose the potential conflict. You're good to vote. Okay. Thank you. [clears throat] Thank you for that, Tom. Any discussion or a motion? My discussion is if city planner and engineers are fine with it and city engineers fine with it, I'm fine with it. Make a proposal and we'll move on.

Okay. I will give a positive recommendation on number nine uh for an ordinance text amendment for section 32-9. That's number eight. We're on number eight. What's that on number eight? Number eight. I was looking at the nine on the other side. uh section 32-9 uh point number eight requiring width of PUE and commercial industrial zones and are you with that if I can ask for a point of clarification adding in Don's addition with regards to its different application to properties with a zero lot line for budding streets I'm not fully understanding that so sure

you can't beat him confuse them [laughter] have to vote before you can read it. Where setbacks are required then this so that I'm glad there's no game tonight. Yes. So let me let me make sure I've got that right Amber. So right here at the beginning it's So the current requirement just says minimum 20 foot easement along the front line. Right. We we would change that then to say many minimum 20 foot easement along street property lines where setbacks are required. Yes. And then the rest of it would remain the same. Let me adjust the motion to uh approve what you just said.

There we go. Perfect. Thank you. [clears throat] Excellent. We have a motion. Second. I'll second. I'll second it. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I I Well done. Okay, Kent, onward to the next uh ordinance text amendment.

So, this one uh may or may not end up being needed, but we'll we'll talk about it anyway. Actually, we probably do need it for other purposes, but in the um item that was brought before you earlier in the meeting that you made a negative recommendation to city council, um we do make m mention thereof functional classification of the streets where we talk about the sidewalks still being required to be installed by the developers along roadways that are functionally classified as major collector or higher. So, we did not have we do not have in our current city ordinance a definition of what that functional classification is. And so, that's the intent of this item before you is to get in our ordinance a definition of functional classification of streets. that would pertain to that uh that uh item if it is approved by city council and would also apply to anything else that uh ends up in our in our city ordinances regarding functional classification. So, I don't know if you uh if there's any questions on the wording as to what any of this means or you know, we're just talking about all of our roadways being being classified as either local streets, collectors or arterials. And then you know with some subdivisions like having you know major or principal uh arterials major collector minor collector minor arterial um you know there would also be some where we where that functional classification may use a land use context such as industrial right so that's what we're talking about it it really defines I mean the the the

streets end up being classified based on what it's what the purpose is within the transportation network, whether it's intended to move a lot of traffic, whether it's really intended to provide local street or local lot access primarily or you know what that functional classification is. And if I can just add Kent and I and I had this conversation is, you know, rather than just saying these certain size streets in the master plan, the fear was is some of our streets that we currently have, including some larger ones, are not in the master plan because they're done. We don't necessarily need to include things like Main Street are like sometimes in there just because it's it's there. Um, so the idea was is to make sure we're basing it not just on the master plan, although that is included, but also existing roads that serve the same size and purposes as those larger streets in the master plan. So it includes the master plan, but it's also broader than that based on actual use of streets. Is that fair?

That is. And when you look at the uh the study document from our master plan study that was done how who knows how many years ago that was three years ago something like that

2022. the uh um in addition to what we have in our master plan for roadways that are intended to be built or improved to a to a particular width or your function that they weren't originally built for. Um there is that, but there's also a map in there that shows all of the functionally classified roadways. um is an exhibit in that document that's available on our website. So, so this you know these functionally classified streets that's information that is already available for you know all of those streets in town not just the ones that are on the master plan. So we don't want to refer to master plan. We want to refer to that. Now, some of that in that that figure is a little bit out of date as there have been changes to the master plan, you know, since three years ago when that was put together, but that's that uh those are really what we're talking about. This covers that

that this covers all of those functionally classified streets. So, basically anything that that isn't just a local street, right? like the street in front of most of our houses in within subdivisions. I think that will make us all feel better to know that we're driving on functionally classified streets.

And the only other thing I would note just because of boring procedural stuff, this is already in fact this pretty much entire agenda is on the council's agenda for next week, December 3rd. Um, this one combined with the one you guys already gave a negative recommendation to will go together. I'm giving to the council as one issue. Your case more historical. They got put in separately. Paul, is there a problem with for and against being combined?

No, I I I'm pretty sure I can cover that in the memo to the council. Whichever way you go, I'm sometimes slow, but I might be able to pull that off. Only problem I have with our streets is we've gone away from the numerical east, west, north, south and put names on them. And I have no idea where I'm going half the time now. That explains a lot. It's pretty [laughter] sad. I'm just glad my truck knows his way home. You and Google are both having the same problem.

Tom, I am glad that my house my street has a number. That is nice. Um, this is a public hearing, so we'll open it. Amber, any comments? You You're hilarious. [laughter] Well, thank you. Um, then we'll close the public hearing and um bring it back to the commission for any discussion or a recommendation. Sounds great. I'll make a positive recommendation on item number nine adding definitions to functional classification of streets. We have a motion second.

Motion and a second. All in favor? I. Motion carries. So my gift to all tonight, I would like to table item number 10. [clears throat] How many times have we kicked? I I was gonna say, does that look like a can there that we're just going to keep kicking? Um, we do have a meeting next week with one one item.

Well, I'll accept that gift, Tom. And and and if we have So, we have a meeting next week. Is that right? On Tuesday, which is our regularly scheduled broadcast. And um if we only have one item on it, there's a pretty good chance we can spend. So I'm willing to move these off as long as we commit to spending a little time on them next time. Does that work for everybody? Save us, man. Yeah. All right. Well, check the game schedule. Thank you. How did the game turn out last week? Oh, we dominated, but it wasn't a very good team. Oh, beautiful. Women's team's really good. Men's team,

it's all fun. Excellent. Okay, with that, uh, happy Thanksgiving everybody. Hope you enjoy your week. And well, we have item number 11 still. Well, it's going it's attached tonight. Item number 10, part of the can. It's Oh, that can's going. The can's going to next week. Okay. My gift. [laughter] That's fine. Thank you. All right. Thanks, everybody. As an stated, hug your grandkids.